EUROPEAN SOCIAL POLICY NETWORK (ESPN)

National strategies to fight

homelessness and housing exclusion

Austria
Marcel Fink

Social Europe
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION

European Social Policy Network (ESPN)

ESPN Thematic Report on

National strategies to fight
homelessness and housing
exclusion

Austria

2019

Marcel Fink

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

2019
The European Social Policy Network (ESPN) was established in July 2014 on the initiative of the
European Commission to provide high-quality and timely independent information, advice,
analysis and expertise on social policy issues in the European Union and neighbouring countries.

The ESPN brings together into a single network the work that used to be carried out by the
European Network of Independent Experts on Social Inclusion, the Network for the Analytical
Support on the Socio-Economic Impact of Social Protection Reforms (ASISP) and the MISSOC
(Mutual Information Systems on Social Protection) secretariat.

The ESPN is managed by the Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER) and
APPLICA, together with the European Social Observatory (OSE).

For more information on the ESPN, see:

http:ec.europa.eusocialmain.jsp?catId=1135&langId=en

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone
boxes or hotels may charge you).

LEGAL NOTICE
This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http:www.europa.eu).

© European Union, 2019

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Quoting this report: Fink, Marcel (2019). ESPN Thematic Report on National strategies to fight
homelessness and housing exclusion – Austria, European Social Policy Network (ESPN), Brussels: European
Commission.
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

Contents

SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 4
1 THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION ..................... 5
2 RELEVANT STRATEGIES AND POLICIES TACKLING HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING
EXCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 10
3 ANALYSIS OF THE CURRENT PATTERNS OF SERVICE PROVISION AND CHALLENGES IN
IMPLEMENTING AUSTRIA’S RESPONSES TO HOMELESSNESS AND HOUSING EXCLUSION 14
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 18
ANNEX .................................................................................................................... 20
Table A1: ETHOS Light categories defined as homeless in Austria ................................ 20
Table A2: Latest available data on the number of homeless in Austria .......................... 21

3
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

Summary
In Austria there is no national strategy for tackling homelessness and housing exclusion.
This is, inter alia, caused by the fact that the responsibility for policy areas that could be
part of such a strategy is dispersed across the different layers of the political and
administrative system, namely at national state level, and in the federal provinces
(Länder) and municipalities. Because of this situation, inter alia, no national definition of
homelessness and housing exclusion exists.
Data on people who are roofless (obdachlos) or homeless (wohnungslos) were for a long
time extremely limited, and were not available for some federal provinces and/or did not
meet standards for validity.
However, data on so-called registered homelessness, which have been made available for
some years now, indicate an overall increase in the number of homeless people over the
decade to 2017. People born abroad, and men, are both overrepresented in this group.
In the latter case this reflects the fact that women are more likely to try to avoid
rooflessness or homelessness by living in precarious housing or with friends etc.: this
phenomenon may be termed ‘hidden female homelessness’.
Overall, rising homelessness is likely to be caused by two structural developments,
namely rising housing costs and rising unemployment. Housing costs have especially
increased for rented dwellings, which especially in urban areas provide a substantial part
of total housing. Rising unemployment has a direct effect on housing problems, as social
transfers are in many cases not sufficient to cover housing costs. Survey results indicate
that unemployment is one of the most frequent causes of homelessness.
The extent and mix of services provided to homeless people show substantial differences
between the individual provinces. Relatively comprehensive and integrated strategies
appear to exist in Vienna, Upper Austria ad also Vorarlberg, whereas some other federal
provinces, such as Burgenland and Carinthia in particular, are lagging behind. Emergency
accommodation and day centres for homeless people are still the most widespread form
of services available for homeless people, and are mostly centralised in big cities.
Furthermore, temporary accommodation in the form of transitional housing is available in
most provinces and especially in bigger cities. Services for the homeless in Austria have
traditionally followed a ‘staircase’ approach, but over recent years a clear tendency
towards more housing-oriented strategies has become visible. Examples are Housing
First projects in Vienna, Graz and Salzburg, and the housing strategy followed in the
federal province of Vorarlberg.
No detailed long-term follow-up studies on the effectiveness of different types of services
for houseless people are available for Austria. Exceptions are the – very positive – results
of different Housing First pilot projects or the programme implemented in Vorarlberg. On
the other hand, there are some hints that the traditional staircase approach does not
show favourable results, as indicated by the evidence for the effects of homelessness on
mortality.
To tackle housing exclusion and homelessness, and the structural causes of the latter, in
an inclusive manner it would be necessary to take measures to: a) prevent rising housing
costs; b) safeguard affordability via adequate transfers to low-income households; and c)
provide high-quality services for eviction prevention and for people who become
homeless. However, recent developments do not indicate any major positive steps on the
first two points. On the contrary, both plans (further liberalisation of tenancy regulations)
and measures already decided (cutback of minimum-income benefits) by the centre-right
government point in the opposite direction. This will leave federal provinces and
municipalities with – in all likelihood – further increased problems of homelessness, to be
dealt with via the social services for this target group. However, a greater incidence of
homelessness will, against the background of limited financial resources, make it even
more difficult to offer (rather costly) high-quality housing-oriented services to the people
affected.

4
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

1 The nature and extent of homelessness and housing exclusion

In Austria, there is no national strategy addressing homelessness and housing exclusion,
because this policy area is to a large extent the responsibility of each of the nine federal
provinces. Because of this situation, inter alia, no national definition of homelessness and
housing exclusion exists. The ETHOS 1 and ETHOS Light classifications are often used
within the (few) analyses on homelessness and housing exclusion (see for example
Schoibl 2013, 4f.; Bauer/Klapfer 2015) and by interest organisations such as the
Bundearbeitsgemeinschaft Wohnungslosenhilfe (BAWO – National Association of
Assistance to the Homeless 2). According to Schoibl (2013, 4) the federal provinces
frequently do not cover all categories within the ETHOS or ETHOS Light classification in
drawing up the legal basis for assistance to the homeless. The main groups addressed in
the related legal and/or administrative definitions are, in terms of the ETHOS categories,
‘roofless’ people (people living rough and people in emergency accommodation/night
shelters) and some ‘homeless’ people, namely people living in short-term accommodation
for the homeless, but also including some types of longer-term accommodation such as
hostels, temporary accommodation, transitional supported accommodation, residential
care for older homeless people or supported accommodation for formerly homeless
people.
Data on people who are roofless or homeless were for a long time extremely limited, and
were not available for some federal provinces and/or did not meet standards for validity,
being based on initial responses given by homeless assistance organisations to sporadic
surveys (Schoibl et al. 2009).
However, data on so-called registered homelessness have been made available for some
years via the compilation of so-called inclusion indicators, provided by Statistics Austria
on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer
Protection 3 (for the most recent release see BMASGK 2018). These data, deriving from
the residential register, encompass two categories of people deemed to be roofless or
homeless.
The first of these two indicators enumerates people registered as living in institutions for
homeless people. The list of institutions used for this purpose derives from the so-called
registry census (Registerzählung) of 2011. This list, all in all, includes 132 institutions
providing shelter to homeless people. However, institutions focusing on homeless women
and refugees, and institutions specifically providing housing for homeless elderly people,
are not taken into account. Furthermore, only addresses are taken into account where
the building is exclusively used to provide shelter to homeless people. Because of this
restriction, the number of institutions/addresses taken into account is reduced to 56. 4 For
these reasons, the number of persons indicated as being registered in institutions for
homeless people can be interpreted as a lower limit (BMASGK 2018, 30).
The second category is people registering themselves as roofless. Since 2001 roofless
people have been able to register themselves with the residential registry authorities (i.e.
the municipality) as roofless, if they can show probable cause that the focus of their ‘life
and relations’ (Lebensbeziehungen) has been in the related municipality over at least the

1
European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion.
2
The BAWO, founded in 1991, is an umbrella organisation of organisations/facilities providing assistance to the
homeless in Austria. The members of BAWO are social non-government organisations (NGOs), and the declared
goal of BAWO is to co-ordinate supra-regional tasks and to provide targeted public relations work to combat
and eliminate housing shortage and homelessness. For further information see:
http://www.bawo.at/de/content/bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft-wohnungslosenhilfe-startseite.html.
3
Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz (BMASGK).
4
Statistics Austria regularly updates this list of institutions. However, in order to provide comparability over
time, the BMASGK report on inclusion indicators only takes into account institutions covered in the 2011
registry census (BMASGK 2018, 30).

5
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

previous month; and if they indicate an address as a contact point 5, which they visit on a
regular basis. It is unclear what share of all roofless people actually register themselves
with the registry authorities. The number of registered roofless people thus also only
indicates a lower bound of all people affected, as the number of people without any
registration might be substantially greater (see also Bauer/Klapfer 2015, 3).
Figure 1 shows the development of the number of the registered homeless according to
the definition described above. These data cover people according to the ETHOS Light
operational categories 1 and 2, and part of 3 (excluding women’s shelters or refuge
accommodation; see Tables A1 and A2 in the Annex).

Figure 1: Number of registered homeless people in Austria, 2008-2017

Note: * Some people are counted under both headings (i.e. registered in institutions for homeless and
registered as roofless), but the total is adjusted for double counting.

Source: Statistics Austria; BMASGK indicators on social inclusion (BMASGK 2018, 29).

The total number of registered homeless people amounted to 21,567 people in 2017, an
increase of 21% since 2008. It consisted of 13,926 people who had registered as
roofless, and 8,688 who were living in institutions for the homeless. The peak in total
registered homelessness was reached in 2013 and from then on there was a slight fall.
The number of registered roofless increased somewhat between 2014 and 2017, after a
substantial decline between 2013 and 2014; whereas the number of people registered in
institutions for the homeless fell somewhat between 2014 and 2017. The BMASGK (2018,
28) notes that the latter observation is also due to the fact that the list of institutions
covered is the one taken from 2011 (see footnote above), and that therefore new
institutions established since then are not taken into account. This means that the
number of homeless people in institutions is underestimated for the most recent years,
and that therefore an overall increase in the number of homeless people is more likely
than a fall (see also below on data according to specific reference dates).

5
The ‘contact point’ also serves as an address for services, e.g. receiving social transfers or post, if the owner
of the contact point agrees. Contact points may be private addresses, homeless assistance institutions, or
facilities for probationary services, social counselling or addiction counselling.

6
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

Overall, from a micro perspective, registered homelessness is highly dynamic:

approximately 60% of those registered as homeless in 2017 had not been registered as
homeless in 2016 (ibid., 28).
Bauer/Klapfer (2015) provide data calculated according to a concept closely related to
the one presented above. On the one hand their results only cover two reference dates
(31 October 2011 and 31 October 2012), thereby reducing the number of registered
homeless when compared with the data presented above, which cover a whole year. On
the other hand, they include a more comprehensive list of relevant institutions, totalling
146 altogether, including women’s shelters and institutions providing housing for people
leaving penal institutions.
According to these data, 6,701 persons were registered as roofless on 31 October 2012,
and 5,402 were registered in institutions for homeless people. 6 Out of the first group,
21.6% had not been registered with the residential register one year earlier; and out of
the second group, 10.4%. 7 For the rest, an entry exists in the residential register for
both reference dates. Figure 2 presents the residential status of people registered as
homeless on 31 October 2012 who had also been registered one year earlier. It indicates
a very dynamic situation, with around 40% of those registered as homeless (roofless or
living in institutions for homeless) having been registered in private households one year
before. On the other hand, about 50% of all people registered as roofless had had the
same status one year before. And more than 50% of those people living in institutions for
the homeless had been resident in an institution of some kind a year earlier.
Figure 2: People in Austria registered as homeless on 31 October 2012
according to residential status one year earlier, %

Source: Bauer/Klapfer (2015, 4).

Bauer/Klapfer (2015) also provide information on the sociodemographic composition of

people registered as homeless.
In October 2012, 77% of all persons registered as roofless were men and 23% were
women. The share of men was somewhat lower among people registered in institutions
for the homeless (69% men and 31% women). Overall, men therefore dominated among
the registered homeless. However, it should be noted that women may be more likely to

6
In the following paragraphs we present more details on these – somewhat outdated – figures. For later years,
only total numbers of registered homeless calculated according to the same methodology have been presented
(Statistik Austria 2018b). According to them, 7,156 persons were registered as roofless on 31 October 2016
(+6.8% compared with 2012), and 5,454 (+1% compared with 2012) were registered in institutions for
homeless people.
7
This may be caused by several factors, including that the person had immigrated to Austria after the reference
date of 31 October 2011 or had been born after this date. One other possibility is that the person had been
living in Austria one year earlier, but was not registered with the residential register in a time window of 90
days around the reference date due to other reasons.

7
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

try to avoid rooflessness or homelessness by living in precarious housing or with friends

etc. (Bauer/Klapfer 2015, p. 5): this phenomenon may be termed ‘hidden female
homelessness’. 8
The largest age group (40%) of all those registered as roofless was young adults/older
children (aged 15-29). 32% were aged 30-44 and 21% 45-59. 2% were aged under 15,
and 5% were older than 59.
Those people registered in institutions for the homeless showed a somewhat different
composition in terms of age groups. Here, the largest group was those aged 45-59
(30%), followed by those aged 30-44 (25%) and those aged 15-29 (20%). 10% were
aged under 15, and 15% 60 and over. Overall, therefore, the registered roofless
displayed a higher concentration of younger people, whereas people registered in
homeless institutions tended to be somewhat older.
Table 1 provides information for 31 October 2012 on registered homelessness according
to country of birth. A substantial proportion (c. 40%) of all registered homeless people
had not been born in Austria (the equivalent share for the whole population of Austria is
16.1%) (Bauer/Klapfer 2015, 6). This indicates that among all registered homeless
people those born outside Austria were substantially overrepresented.
In respect of those people registered as roofless only, more than 50% had been born
outside Austria, whereas their share of those living in institutions amounted to 27%.
Table 1: Registered homeless people in Austria according to country of birth, 31
October 2012
Country of birth Roofless In institution Total
Number % total Number % total Number % total
Austria 3,338 49.8 3,943 73.0 7,281 60.2
Not Austria 3,363 50.2 1,459 27.0 4,822 39.8
Of which:
EU/EEA/incl. 812 12.1 494 9.1 1,306 10.8
Switzerland
Former Yugoslavia 407 6.1 351 6.5 758 6.3
(excl. Slovenia)
Turkey 207 3.1 145 2.7 352 2.9
Other European 777 11.6 97 1.8 874 7.2
countries*
Africa 475 7.1 155 2.9 630 5.2
Asia 634 9.5 181 3.4 815 6.7
Other 51 0.8 36 0.7 87 0.7
Total 6,701 100.0 5,402 100.0 12,103 100.0
Source: Statistics Austria, Bauer/Klapfer (2015) & own calculations.

* Note: Around 95% of all persons born in other European countries were born in the Russian Federation.

8
See e.g. http://www.bawo.at/de/content/wohnungslosigkeit/frauen/frauenwohnungslosigkeit.html.

8
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

About 54% of the registered homeless who had been born in Austria lived in institutions
for homeless people, whereas this only held for around 30% of those born outside
Austria. The share of roofless people among all homeless people was especially high for
persons born in ‘other European countries’ (c. 89%), for people born in Africa (c. 75%)
and for people born in Asia (c. 78%). These data reflect the fact that access to a place in
institutions for homeless people usually requires Austrian citizenship, or, in the case of
EU citizenship, long-term legal residency in Austria (BAWO 2013; Schoibl 2016).
Another fact worth noting is that registered homelessness was largely concentrated in
the biggest cities. Around 70% of all registered homeless people in October 2012 9 lived
in the capital city Vienna, and in total another 20% in the five other larger Austrian cities
(Graz, Linz, Salzburg, Innsbruck and Klagenfurt) (Bauer/Klapfer 2015, 6, 12). A similar
situation held for people registered as roofless, of whom 79.1% lived in Vienna, and
another 16.3% in the five larger cities. People living in institutions for the homeless
showed a very slightly lower concentration in the biggest cities, with about 60%
registered in Vienna and 25% registered in the five larger cities.
Only very limited quantitative information is available on the health status of homeless
people. However, according to an evaluation study on homeless assistance schemes
(Wohnungslosenhilfe) in Vienna, published in 2012, 57% of the clients 10 of homelessness
assistance reported physical health issues, 39% mental and emotional problems, 20%
problems with the consumption of alcohol and other drugs, and 6% other addictive
behaviour (especially gambling addiction and shopping addiction) (Riesenfelder et al.
2012, 337, Table 252). In total, around 27% reported no health-related issues. Overall,
it appears that health problems are a major challenge in the context of homelessness.
Klotz et al. (2019) recently presented research results on the mortality risk of registered
homeless people compared with the whole population of Austria. Due to the
comparatively low number of registered elderly homeless people, and the problem of
hidden forms of homelessness in the case of women, the analysis was constrained to
males aged 15-64. On 1 January 2015, there were 15,849 men of that age who had
experienced registered homelessness in the calendar years 2013 and 2014. Out of those,
414 (2.6%) died in the years 2015 to 2017. This number exceeded by 310 the number
statistically expected based on the mortality risks in the general population. The
mortality risk of the homeless was thus 4 times as high as in the general population.
Furthermore, significant excess mortality was observed for all age groups. The highest
excess mortality was observed at ages 35-44. The most pronounced effect was found for
mental and behavioural disorders related to substance abuse, and for cirrhosis of the
liver. Overall, homelessness appeared to shorten the life expectancy of males by
approximately 20 years.
As indicated above, overall homelessness (roofless people and those living in institutions
for the homeless) rose over the 10 years to 2017. This development was probably driven
by more general developments in the housing market and in the labour market.
According to a recent analysis by the Vienna Chamber of Labour (AK-Wien 2017)
consumer prices rose by 14.3% in Austria between 2008 and 2016, and the median
equivalised disposable household income increased by 22.1%. During the same time the
gross rent per square meter (incl. VAT) increased by 32.5% on average. This increase
amounted to 41.8% in the private sector, 23.9% for dwellings rented from ‘limited-profit
housing associations’ 11 (LPHAs) and 31.4% for municipal housing (ibid., 8). Furthermore,
prices for rented dwellings in cities accelerated at an even higher pace than the national
average. In Vienna the gross rent per square meter (incl. VAT) increased by 38%
between 2008 and 2016. Here, the price increase in the private sector amounted to

9
More recent data, for October 2016, show a largely similar distribution (Statistik Austria 2018b, 95).
10
These clients represent a heterogeneous group, including people sleeping in night shelters and people living
in different kinds of institutions for homeless people (for details see Riesenfelder et al. 2012, 263, Table 46).
11
Gemeinnützige Wohnbaugesellschaften.

9
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

53.3%, for dwellings rented from LPHAs 25.8% and for municipal housing 20.5% (ibid.
18).
The total housing cost overburden rate, amounting to 7.1% in 2017, still appeared to be
comparatively low by international standards (average of EU-28: 10.4%). 12 However,
between 2006 and 2017 in Austria it increased by 2.1 percentage points, or 42%. For
people at risk of poverty, the housing cost overburden rate in Austria increased from
29.1% in 2006 to 40.3% in 2017 (a rise of 38%), exceeding the EU-28 average (37.9%).
The housing cost overburden rate was also generally high for young people in Austria. In
the age range 15-29 it increased from 5.8% in 2006 to 10.4% in 2017, or by 79%,
finishing just short of the EU-28 average of 11.9%. All these data indicate rising
problems of housing affordability, especially as relatively low-cost housing became
increasingly scarce over the last two decades – for more details see, for example,
Kunnert (2016) and Streissler-Führer et al. (2015). The latter report mentions, inter alia,
factors such as high immigration and an associated rising demand for housing, and
additionally a trend towards upgrading existing low-cost dwellings via renovation.
The affordability of housing evidently depends on the income situation of households,
which again is linked to issues of gainful employment and unemployment. The number of
unemployed people (yearly average; Labour Force Survey data) in Austria rose from
about 172,000 in 2008 to 223,000 in 2009 and then, after a short recovery in 2010 and
2011, rose further to 270,000 in 2016. After that it fell to 220,000 in 2018. 13 The
unemployment rate among those aged 15-64 increased from 4.2% in 2008 to 6.1% in
2016, and amounted to 4.9% in 2018. 14 This – until recently – rather unfavourable
development in all likelihood also contributed to rising homelessness. In a recent survey
amongst the clients of homelessness assistance schemes in Vienna, 42% of respondents
indicated that unemployment was one of the main causes of their homelessness (Fonds
Soziales Wien 2016, 12). This was the cause most often indicated, followed by
separation/divorce from their partner (32%).

2 Relevant strategies and policies tackling homelessness and

housing exclusion
In Austria, no national strategy for tackling homelessness and housing exclusion
exists. This is, inter alia, caused by the fact that the responsibility for policy areas that
could be part of such a strategy is dispersed across the different layers of the political
and administrative System, namely at national state level (government of the Federal
Republic), and in the federal provinces andmunicipalities.
The Federal Republic is responsible for civil law regulation, including landlord and tenant
law – among other things addressing the level of rent within parts of the private market,
condominium law and basic regulations on LPHAs. Furthermore, the Federal Republic is
responsible for tax law and determines jointly with the federal provinces the equalisation
of tax revenue distribution between the different levels of government (including the
earmarking of funds for specific purposes).
The nine provincial governments are responsible for different forms of housing-related
subsidies. Their housing subsidy schemes cover aid for individuals in the form of cash
transfers (housing benefit; Wohnbeihilfe), subsidies for bricks and mortar (housebuilding
subsidies; Wohnbauförderung) and subsidies for renovation and refurbishment. The
federal provinces also implement the law relating to limited-profit housing. Furthermore,
the provinces are – in principle – responsible for legislation on and implementing the

12
Source for data on housing costs overburden: EU-SILC; Eurostat database, indicator
[ilc_lvho07a].
13
Source: Labour Force Survey (LFS); Eurostat database, indicator [une_rt_a].
14
Source: LFS; Eurostat database, indicator [lfsa_urgan].

10
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

minimum-income scheme. This issue has recently been made the subject of national
framework legislation, after another model of national co-ordination came to an end in
2017 (see below).
The municipalities (partly together with the provinces) are responsible for implementing
building law, planning regulation and policies on the use of land and its allocation for
housing purposes. The allocation of social welfare dwellings (Gemeindewohnungen), is
also one of the tasks assigned to the municipalities.
More specific social services to prevent homelessness and support homeless people are
organised by the federal provinces and the municipalities, either through or in
conjunction with their more general institutions of social welfare. However, very large
variations appear to exist in such services between regions and partly also between
different localities (Schoibl 2013; Schoibl/Stöger 2014; BAWO 2013).
Overall, this complex structure of competencies impedes an integrated strategy for
promoting affordable housing, preventing homelessness and guaranteeing equal access
to high-quality services for homeless people without major regional variations.
In order to understand issues of housing exclusion and homelessness in Austria it is
important to present some basic facts about the Austrian structure of housing. In
national terms, Austria exhibits a comparatively high share of rented dwellings, of
which a comparatively large proportion is municipal housing and dwellings offered by
LPHAs. In 2017, 37% of all dwellings used as main residences were owner-occupied
houses and 11% owner-occupied flats. 18% were privately rented, 17% rented from
LPHAs and 7% were municipal housing. Other arrangements accounted for the remaining
10% (Statistik Austria 2018b, 22). 15 This means that limited-profit and municipal housing
altogether accounted for about 24% of the total housing stock, and for 57% of the rental
sector, which were high numbers by international standards (Housing Europe 2015).
However, it has to be taken into account that housing structures show very substantial
variations between federal provinces and between urban and rural areas. The capital city
of Vienna stands out as, in 2017, only 7% of all dwellings were owner-occupied houses
and 12% owner-occupied flats. Here, most dwellings were rented flats. 23% of all
dwellings in Vienna in 2017 were provided by municipal housing, 20% by LPHAs and 34%
by private landlords (Statistik Austria 2018b, 22). At the other extreme was the mostly
rural federal province of Burgenland, where 70% of all dwellings in 2017 were owner-
occupied houses, 2% owner-occupied flats, 12% LPHA dwellings, 5% rented from private
landlords and only about 1% rented municipal housing. The other federal provinces were
located between these two extremes, with usually around 50-60% of all dwellings being
owner-occupied houses and flats, and 10-20% offered by LPHAs. Municipal housing here
accounted for about 2-4% of all dwellings, and dwellings rented from private landlords
accounted for 10-20% (ibid.).
At the same time, it is evident that rental dwellings generally play a more important role
in urban than in rural areas. Apart from Vienna, the cities of Graz, Linz, Salzburg and
Innsbruck have more than 100,000 inhabitants. In these cities (excl. Vienna) an average
11% of all dwellings are owner-occupied houses and 20% owner-occupied flats. 28% are
rented from LPHAs, 4% from municipalities and 30% from private landlords (Statistik
Austria 2018b, 23f.). Overall, it is apparent that it is especially in the urban areas that a
concentration of roofless and houseless people exists (see above, Section 1). This
coincides with a comparatively high share of dwellings being rented, prices for which, as
sketched out above, increased at a much higher pace over the last decade than general
consumer prices and median disposable household income (see Section 1 above). Here it
should be noted that rents for municipal and LPHA housing also increased substantially
over the last decade, contributing to an increasingly evident general lack of housing
affordable by low-income households in urban areas. Overall, in many urban areas
housing demand has increasingly outperformed supply and poorer-quality but affordable

15
E.g. cost-free dwellings owned by relatives or service accommodation.

11
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

apartments have almost completely disappeared due to widespread renovations and

consolidations of small units (Kunnert 2016; Mundt/Amann 2015a and 2015b).
At the same time, it has become evident that landlord and tenant law, regulating parts
of privately rented housing, is increasingly ineffective in preventing the acceleration in
rental prices. Against this background, the previous government of Social Democrats
(SPÖ) and the Peoples’ Party (ÖVP), in office until December 2017, announced a reform
of landlord and tenant law, with the goal of more transparent regulations and more
affordable housing within the private rented sector (Republik Österreich 2013, 60f.).
However, the negotiations on this issue did not lead to a concrete reform, due to
different positions within the coalition government. Another point to note is the debates
on the question of whether funds for housebuilding subsidies should in future once
again be earmarked 16 within the new Financial Equalisation Act, which became effective
as from the beginning of 2017. However, such a decision was in the end not taken. The
political agenda announced by the current national government of the ÖVP and the
Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), which entered office in December 2017, set a course
towards the promotion of ownership and the easing of existing landlord and tenant law,
instead of direct facilitation of affordable housing (Republik Österreich 2017).
As mentioned above, LPHA and/or municipal housing is of considerable importance in
most urban areas in Austria. These sectors provide dwellings at rents that are usually
lower than in the private sector. Here it should be noted that both limited-profit housing
and municipal housing is accessible to a large part of the population since income ceilings
are rather high. Furthermore, if a household’s income rises later on this does not negate
the right to remain in the dwelling. Overall, this means that social housing in Austria is
not intended to house only low-income households, and this approach prevents social
segregation. On the other hand, availability and accessibility may be de facto limited due
to a lack of available dwellings and the resultant waiting lists; and for LPHA dwellings
substantial entry costs may often apply. 17
Another policy area with a direct impact on the affordability of housing and on
homelessness is the means-tested minimum-income schemes (MMI) and additional
housing-related transfers for low-income households. These benefits in principle fall
within the responsibility of the federal provinces, but different attempts have been made
in the past to achieve nationwide co-ordination of the MMI. Earlier national co-ordination
of national minimum standards for these schemes via a so-called ‘15a treaty’ came to an
end in 2016, as the Federal Republic and the provinces could not reach a compromise on
a renewed agreement. The current centre-right government then introduced a national
framework law on MMI 18 which, amongst other things, entails: i) maximum benefit
levels to be taken into account by each federal province (instead of minimum levels
stipulated by the earlier 15a treaty); ii) lower benefit levels for children (with
substantially reduced benefits for every additional child in the household); iii)
substantially reduced benefit levels for people with low skills in German or without very
good skills in English (a stipulation that will negatively affect recognised refugees in
particular); and iv) a general waiting period of five years for people who have newly
migrated to Austria (apart from refugees; some of such migrants have up to now had
access to the MMI). Overall, this reform will have a significant negative impact on the
financial situation of families with more than one child; and families with three or more
children, in particular, will get substantially lower benefits. Furthermore, the benefits

16
Such earmarking existed earlier, but was abolished in 2007.
17
When renting a flat from an LPHA, one usually has to pay a so-called financing contribution
(Finanzierungsbeitrag), which often amounts to around €15,000 to €30,000, but which may even be much
higher. Interest-free loans etc. may be available to cover such costs for very low-income households:
nonetheless, entry costs are considered to reduce access to LPHA dwellings.
18
For details see: https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XXVI/I/I_00514/index.shtml#tab-
ParlamentarischesVerfahren.

12
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

granted to recognised refugees not showing sufficient language skills will be substantially
reduced.
Regarding the coverage of housing costs via MMI, the 15a treaty left considerable
discretionary powers with the federal provinces, which resulted in substantial variations
in the related regulations (for an overview see Armutskonferenz 2012, 26ff.). Overall,
benefits earmarked in MMI for housing, even taken together with additional means-
tested housing-related transfers (which exist in most provinces according to different
regulations), were in many cases not sufficient to cover actual housing costs (especially
in urban areas), resulting in housing costs either being unaffordable or reducing the
amount of household income available to meet other needs. The new national
framework law on MMI came into effect on 1 June 2019, and the federal provinces will
have to adapt their legislation for MMI by the end of 2019. Regarding housing costs, it
stipulates that the provinces should follow the principle of covering them in the form of
benefits in kind (Sachleistungen), for example by making payments of rent on tenants’
behalf directly to landlords. Where housing costs are comparatively high, federal
provinces may increase the maximum benefit levels stipulated by the national framework
law by up to 30%, if they are provided in the form of such benefits in kind. However, in
this case MMI cash benefits that are available to the household may only amount to a
maximum of 60% of the general maximum benefit, thereby fixing the maximum
resources available for other needs at a very low level. It remains to be seen how the
provinces will actually translate these rules into their own related regulations. Overall,
against the background of the above-mentioned general benefit cuts, these new rules are
likely to imply that housing will in future not be easier to afford for many recipients
of MMI and/or that even fewer resources than currently will be available in MMI
households for other needs.
Other measures are explicitly aimed at preventing homelessness or offering services
to homeless people (for details see Section 3 below).
Funding for services and other measures dealing with housing issues comes from the
general tax yield. However, the federal provinces and the municipalities generally have
only very low tax revenues of their own, which means that resources primarily come
from national taxes distributed to the provinces and the municipalities via the so-called
tax equalisation agreements, negotiated between the Federal Republic, the federal
provinces and the municipalities. This transfer of finances currently lacks earmarked
resources for measures and services related to housing and homelessness, leaving it to
the provinces and municipalities as to whether they emphasise these issues or not. The
result is a very substantial variation in services and municipal housing available across
the country, and by international standards a generally rather low level of social spending
explicitly dedicated to housing. Austria has recently only spent about 0.1% of its GDP on
related measures, substantially lower than the EU-28 average (0.5% in 2018). 19 EU
funding (e.g. ESF, ERDF, FEAD 20) in Austria does not appear to play an important role in
supporting services and other measures dealing with housing issues, because
programming for these funds in Austria does not directly address housing issues.
Although no national strategy on homelessness and housing exclusion exists, the
BMASGK within its yearly report on inclusion indicators (BMASGK 2018) is monitoring
the development of registered homelessness (see above Section 1). This report also
describes the development of EU indicators on housing cost overburden, overcrowding
and of severe housing deprivation: however, it does not provide any further analysis, or
make any proposals for measures to be taken.

19
Source: ESSPROS (European System of integrated Social PROtection Statistics); Eurostat database, indicator
[spr_exp_fho].
20
ESF = European Social Fund; ERDF = European Regional Development Fund; FEAD = Fund for European Aid
to the Most Deprived.

13
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

3 Analysis of the current patterns of service provision and

challenges in implementing Austria’s responses to
homelessness and housing exclusion
Regarding services for homeless people, and to some extent also measures aimed at
preventing homelessness, very substantial variations appear to exist in regional and
partly also in local terms. Such services in Austria, in principle, are within the
responsibility of the federal provinces and municipalities, which organise such services
either through or in conjunction with their more general institutions and measures of
social welfare. Furthermore, in practice it is very often social NGOs and churches which
provide such services, often in co-operation with, or co-financed by, public welfare
institutions. Services available show a substantial variation among provinces and often
show a concentration on urban areas in the first instance (see BAWO 2013 for an
overview). There are indications that related services have been expanded in many
provinces over the last decade, partly accompanied by attempts at more active and
comprehensive planning. However, it must be stressed that no up-to-date and in-depth
analysis of related issues, comparing and assessing the development and situation in the
nine different federal provinces, is available at the time of writing. 21 Still, it is possible to
provide some basic insights.
Overall, not only legislation but also the extent and mix of services provided show
substantial differences between the individual provinces. Vienna and Upper Austria in
particular appear to provide a comparatively wide variety of services, thus targeting
various types of homeless people. In both these provinces the services are part of
broader explicit strategical planning. An explicit programme and comprehensive approach
to reducing the number of roofless and houseless people also exists in Vorarlberg, which
is the most western province of Austria. On the other hand, it appears that the provinces
of Carinthia and especially Burgenland are lagging behind, with the first homelessness
shelter in Burgenland being established only in 2012 (BAWO 2013). As a general
principle, homelessness services first become available in urban areas; but the
homelessness strategies of Vorarlberg and Upper Austria, for example, also show a
strong attempt to ensure outreach to rural areas.
Traditionally, the most widespread service available for homeless people is emergency
accommodation and day centres, which are mostly centralised in big cities. Such
services are now available in all federal provinces. Most of them offer support-focused
(i.e. not housing-focused) low-intensity services only. However, in some of these
institutions a housing-focused medium- to high-intensity approach is also applied. For
example, in Vienna, the three main existing emergency shelters recently provided a total
of about 450 overnight places, of which around 300 were in new facilities called ‘Chances
Houses’, where some medium-intensity support is also available and which are not closed
during daytime. Additional overnight places were made available in Vienna during the
period between November 2018 and April 2019 (c. 900 places). Here, only shared rooms
were available and only low-intensity support. The accommodation could also be used by
people who were not entitled to the regular Viennese homelessness shelters; that is,
inter alia, people without social insurance or who had not become homeless in Vienna.
The latter point addresses a general issue of accessibility of homelessness services
for specific groups. Usually access is in the first instance limited to Austrian and EU
citizens, who had their legal residence (in the case of EU citizens for some minimum
period) in the related federal province before becoming homeless. For people of other
citizenships, further minimum durations of legal residence (often five years) and the
precondition of an unlimited residence permit apply. These regulations substantially limit
the accessibility of related services for people with a migration background, the results of

21
Such an analysis would be a research project on its own and evidently goes beyond the scope of this report.

14
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

which are visible in their over-representation in the group of roofless people not
registered as living in institutions for homeless people.
Temporary accommodation in the form of transitional housing is available in most
provinces and especially in bigger cities. This is usually organised by municipalities,
partly in co-operation with NGOs; in most cases it is medium-intensity support-focused
accommodation, and in some cases it is also housing-focused. For example, in Vienna
places available in transitional housing increased from about 700 in 2007 to 1,980 in
2017. Nonetheless, it appears that the availability of transitional housing lags behind
demand in many provinces.
Services for the homeless in Austria have traditionally followed a staircase approach,
where homeless people have to fulfil certain requirements such as sobriety before the
issue of housing is addressed. However, in recent times, Housing First methods have
been increasingly implemented.
In 2010, the Viennese city government decided to restructure its homelessness services,
paving the way for Housing First projects such as the one by the social NGO
Neunerhaus, which has also released reports on the programme’s progress (Neunerhaus
2015). Additionally, the city of Graz is providing Housing First services for women, 22 and
in Salzburg 5-10 apartments per year are provided for a Housing First programme. 23
Regarding the Neunerhaus Housing First pilot project in Vienna, it was reported that
three years after its implementation 98% of the clients still had a valid tenancy, with only
one eviction taking place within the programme (Neunerhaus 2015). Overall, it appears
that in Vienna the growing implementation of Housing First has accelerated a shift
towards a housing-led approach that had been underway since 2010. Increasingly,
mobile support is combined with access to permanent apartments in both short- and
medium-term services. More intensive services, in the form of ‘socially supported
housing’, are also provided to former homeless people who want to live independently
but who need continued support due to psychological problems or chronic illness
(FEANTSA 2018b, 77f.).
A related approach is also followed in the province of Vorarlberg. Focusing on barriers
to accessing private and social housing, the programme provides direct access to social
housing and outreach support for homeless people with high support needs. This
programme started in 2006 and shows very favourable outcomes (for more details see
FEANTSA 2018a, 69).
It should be noted that specific services exist for particular target groups.
In 2018 3,284 people were living within 26 women’s shelters, approximately half of
them children. This number had stayed roughly constant over the previous decade (AÖF
2019).
For people leaving penal institutions 24 specific programmes such as ‘New Start’
(Neustart) exist, which provide help in the reintegration process. That also means
offering help in finding a new home, or in emergency cases providing temporary shelter.
New Start has 105 domiciles in Linz and Vienna for these instances, and in 2017 204
people accessed them (BMVRDJ 2018, 174).
Regarding the inhabitants of shelters for refugees, a large influx around 2015 led to an
increase in the number of people in such institutions, rising from 16,445 in 2014 to
42,649 in 2016 (Statistik Austria 2018b).

22
https://jaw.or.at/ueber-uns/standorte/einrichtung/s/housing-first.
23
http://www.vinzi.at/vinzidach-salzburg.
24
For statistics on people in penal institutions, see:
www.justiz.gv.at/web2013/home/strafvollzug/statistik/verteilung-des-
insassenstandes~2c94848542ec49810144457e2e6f3de9.de.html.

15
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

One additional specific and important type of service for homeless people worth
mentioning explicitly is medical services. Although coverage by health insurance is
generally very high in Austria (inter alia due to the fact that recipients of MMI are also
covered by health insurance), there is substantial specific demand by homeless people
that is not met by the normal healthcare institutions. As a result, health services for
uninsured people are provided by, in particular, social NGOs or hospitals following
charitable principles. One well known example of the latter is the Hospital of the Brothers
of Mercy (Barmherzige Brüder) in Vienna, which reportedly every year provides
ambulatory health services to around 20,000-30,000 uninsured patients, and in-patient
treatment to around 1,000-1,500 uninsured patients (LBI-HTA 2012, 50). Examples of
health services organised by social NGOs for people without health insurance are AMBER-
MED 25 and the Neunerhaus Health Centre 26 in Vienna or the Marienambulanz 27 in Graz.
All of them offer medical, and also some dental, treatment to people without health
insurance, as well as – to some extent – to insured persons who for different reasons
(social anxiety, fear of additional costs that cannot be financed, etc.) do not want to
consult a physician or specialist within the regular health system. Many – but by no
means all – of the patients are homeless people or people without Austrian citizenship.
AMBER-MED treated more than 3,500 patients in 2017; Neunerhaus medical services
reported 3,699 patients in 2016 and provided 27,206 cases of treatment (of which 4,874
were dental treatments); and the Marienambulanz had 2,393 patients in 2016. One
evident problem is that such services are only available in some of the biggest urban
centres, and not in other geographic areas.
Prevention services to avoid evictions are prominently available in 6 out of 9
provinces; another 2 provide services mainly in their respective large cities and only 1 –
Burgenland – has no prevention service yet (BAWO 2015, p35). Vienna has a varied set
of eviction prevention services, with different institutions focusing on private, co-
operative or social housing. The Fachstelle für Wohnungssicherung (FAWOS – Centre for
Secure Housing) run by the social NGO Volkshilfe Wien has a focus on private and co-
operative housing, working directly with tenants when they are in rent arrears or under
threat of eviction by a court. 28 Tenants under threat of eviction from the city’s own social
housing are supported by the municipal landlord Wiener Wohnen, 29 which includes legal
advice, conflict mediation, and support with rent arrears including help with budgeting. It
appears that the phased strengthening of eviction prevention in Vienna has had positive
effects, as over 10 years the number of eviction lawsuits that actually ended with an
eviction declined sharply, from 1 in 4 to 1 in 8 (Stadt Wien 2015, 149).
To our knowledge, no detailed long-term follow-up studies of the effectiveness of
other types of services for houseless people are available in Austria. Exceptions are the –
very positive – results of different Housing First pilot projects or the above-mentioned
programme implemented in Vorarlberg since 2006. On the other hand, there are some
hints that the traditional staircase approach does not show favourable results, as
indicated by the above-mentioned (Section 1) evidence of the effects of homelessness on
mortality.
In general terms, one major issue causing problems regarding homelessness and
housing is the above-mentioned dispersion of responsibilities for relevant policy areas
across the different layers of the political and administrative system. This means that
housing exclusion and homelessness, and the structural causes of the latter, are not
addressed in an inclusive manner. The latter would imply taking measures to: i) prevent
rising housing costs; ii) safeguard affordability via adequate transfers to low-

25
See http://www.amber-med.at.
26
See http://www.neunerhaus.at/organisation/jahresberichte.
27
See https://www.caritas-steiermark.at/hilfe-angebote/menschen-in-not/gesundheit/marienambulanz-
medizinische-erst-und-grundversorgung.
28
See https://www.volkshilfe-wien.at/wohnungslosenhilfe/fawos.
29
See https://www.wienerwohnen.at.

16
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

income households; and iii) provide high-quality services for people who became
homeless.
These points at the same time address the main systemic factors limiting effective and
sustainable ways out of homelessness.
As outlined in this report, rising housing costs in Austria are caused by a number of
factors. Demand has increasingly been surpassing supply (especially in urban areas); and
landlord and tenant law, regulating parts of private rental housing, is increasingly
ineffective in preventing the acceleration in prices. At the same time, the availability and
accessibility of municipal housing and housing offered by LPHAs may be de facto limited
due to a lack of available dwellings and the length of waiting lists; and in the case of
LPHAs, substantial entry costs may often apply.
Regarding transfers to low-income households, there is evidence that these transfers are
often not adequate to ensure the affordability of housing costs, and the recently decided
reform of the MMI scheme will in all likelihood further amplify this problem.
Regarding services for people who become homeless, regional variations, together with a
lack of integrated strategies in some federal provinces, are a major issue. One other
systemic problem in this area is that access to such services is in many cases denied to
people without Austrian citizenship and/or people who cannot provide proof of legal
residence in the related federal province for a specific minimum duration. This means
that many services are not accessible for a large share of homeless people.
The most important innovation in the provision of homelessness services within the last
five years is the increased orientation towards Housing First methods. Related projects
show very good results, but a further extension of such programmes would have to face
real challenges, namely increasing housing prices and limited welfare budgets (FEANTSA
2018b, 50).

17
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

References
AK-Wien (2017). Mieten in Österreich und Wien 2008-2016, Arbeiterkammer Wien (AK-
Wien) [Vienna Chamber of Labour]. (Available in German at:
www.arbeiterkammer.at/infopool/wien/Mieten_in_Oesterreich_und_Wien_2008_bis_2
016.pdf.)
AÖF (2019). Statistik der autonomen Frauenhäuser 1992-2018, Autonome
Österreichische Frauenhäuser (AÖF) [Autonomous Austrian women's shelters].
(Available in German at: www.aoef.at/images/04a_zahlen-und-
daten/Frauenhausstatistik_1992-2018.pdf.)
Armutskonferenz (2012). Monitoring ‘Bedarfsorientierte Mindestsicherung’. Analyse und
Vergleich der Länderbestimmungen zur Bedarfsorientierten Mindestsicherung, 2nd
revised edition, August 2012, Vienna. (Available in German at:
http://www.armutskonferenz.at/files/armkon_bms_monitoring_matrix-2012_1.pdf.)
Bauer, A./K. Klapfer (2015). Registerbasierte Statistiken. Haushalte. Kalenderjahr 2015,
Schnellbericht 10.22, Statistik Austria, Wien. (Available in German at:
https://www.seicherl.com/archiv/schnellbericht_registerbasierte_statistiken_2015_nr.
_10.22_-_wohnungslosig.pdf.)
BAWO (2013). Wohnungslosenhilfe von Ost bis West, Bundearbeitsgemeinschaft
Wohnungslosenhilfe (BAWO) [National Association of Assistance to the Homeless].
(Available in German at:
www.sozialministerium.at/cms/site/attachments/0/6/9/CH3434/CMS1459846683280/
16_wlh_von_o_bis_w_web.pdf.)
BAWO (2015). Prävention von Wohnungslosigkeit, Bundearbeitsgemeinschaft
Wohnungslosenhilfe (BAWO) [National Association of Assistance to the Homeless].
(Available in German at:
www.armutskonferenz.at/files/bawo_praevention_wohnungslosigkeit-2015.pdf.)
BMASGK (2018). Eingliederungsindikatoren 2017, Bundesministerium für Arbeit,
Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz (BMASGK) [Federal Ministry of Labour,
Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection]. (Available in German at:
www.sozialministerium.at/cms/site/attachments/8/6/5/CH3434/CMS1553498749511/
eingliederungsindikatoren_2017__statfinal_rev1_2.pdf.)
BMVRDJ (2018). Sicherheitsbericht 2017. Bericht über die Tätigkeit der Strafjustiz,
Bundesministerium für Justiz (BMVRDJ) [Federal Ministry of Justice]. (Available in
German at: www.bmi.gv.at/508/files/SIB_2017/04_SIB_2017-Justizteil_web.pdf.)
FEANTSA (2018a). Third overview of housing exclusion in Europe, Fédération Européenne
des Associations Nationales Travaillant avec les Sans-Abri (FEANTSA) [European
Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless], Brussels. (Available
at: https://www.feantsa.org/download/full-report-en1029873431323901915.pdf.)
FEANTSA (2018b). Homelessness Services in Europe, EOH Comparative Studies on
Homelessness, Fédération Européenne des Associations Nationales Travaillant avec les
Sans-Abri (FEANTSA) [European Federation of National Organisations Working with
the Homeless], Brussels. (Available at:
https://www.feantsaresearch.org/public/user/Observatory/Feantsa-
Studies_08_v02%5b1%5d.pdf.)
Fonds Soziales Wien (2016). Wiener Wohnungslosenhilfe. KundInnenbefragung Frühjahr
2016, Vienna. (Available in German at:
https://www.fsw.at/downloads/kundinnenbefragung/KundInnenbefragung_Wohnungsl
osenhilfe_2016.pdf.)
Klotz, J./M. Till/A. Wisbauer (2019). Sterberisiko und Wohnungslosigkeit. Ein Vergleich
der Sterblichkeit wohnungsloser Männer und der Allgemeinbevölkerung. In:
Statistische Nachrichten 2/2019, pp 131-137.

18
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

Kunnert, A. (2016). Leistbarkeit von Wohnen in Österreich. Operationalisierung und

demographische Komponenten, WIFO, Wien. (Available in German at:
https://www.wifo.ac.at/jart/prj3/wifo/resources/person_dokument/person_dokument.
jart?publikationsid=58932&mime_type=application/pdf.)
LBI-HTA (2012). Gesundheitszustand von wohnungslosen Menschen und deren
Zugang(sbarrieren) zum Gesundheitssystem [Health status of homeless people and
their access (barriers) to the health system], Ludwig Boltzmann Institut für Health
Technology Assessment (LBI-HTA), Vienna. (Available in German at:
http://eprints.hta.lbg.ac.at/980/1/HTA-Projektbericht_Nr.63.pdf.)
Mundt, A./W. Amann (2015a). Housing benefits and minimum income schemes – Is
Austrian housing still affordable for welfare recipients? Draft 25 June 2016, conference
paper for European Network for Housing Research (ENHR) Conference, 2015, Lisboa.
Mundt, A./W. Amann (2015b). Leistbares Wohnen – Bestandsaufnahme von monetären
Leistungen für untere Einkommensgruppen zur Deckung des Wohnbedarfs. [Affordable
housing – review of housing allowances for low income groups], Report commissioned
by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Consumer Protection,
Vienna.
Neunerhaus (2015). Housing First. Pilot Project Vienna. (Available at:
www.neunerhaus.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Fachpublikationen/2015/20150925_Housin
gFirst_Report_english.pdf.)
Republik Österreich (2013). Arbeitsprogramm der österreichischen Bundesregierung
2013-2018, Vienna. (Available in German at:
https://www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=53264.)
Republik Österreich (2017). Zusammen. Für unser Österreich. Regierungsprogramm
2017-2022. (Available in German at:
https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/documents/131008/569203/Regierungsprogram
m_2017%E2%80%932022.pdf/b2fe3f65-5a04-47b6-913d-2fe512ff4ce6.)
Riesenfelder A./S. Schelepa/P. Wetzel (2012). Evaluierung Wiener Wohnungslosenhilfe,
Tabellenband zum Endbericht, L&R Sozialforschung, Wien. (Available in German at:
http://www.lrsocialresearch.at/files/Endbericht_Eval_WWH_Tabellenband.pdf.)
Schoibl, H. (2013). Wohnungsnot und Wohnungslosigkeit. Update des Datenüberlicks.
Study on behalf of BMASK. (Available in German at:
www.sozialministerium.at/cms/site/attachments/5/9/5/CH3434/CMS1459846717781/
17_daten_zu_wohnungsnot_und_wohnungslosigkeit.pdf.)
Schoibl, H. (2016). Örtliche Zuständigkeit und Wohnungslosenhilfe. Rechtliche &
administrative Grundlagen der Wohnungslosenhilfe in Österreich. Helix: Salzburg.
Schoibl, H./A. Schoibl/S. Ginner/J. Wittek/F. Sedlak (2009). Wohnungslosigkeit und
Wohnungslosenhilfe in Österreich. Wohnungslosenerhebung 2006-2007-2008,
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Wohnungslosenhilfe BAWO, Vienna.
Schoibl, H./H. Stöger (2014). Armutsfalle Wohnen. Wohnpolitik und Armutsrisiken, in: N.
Dimmel et al. (eds): Handbuch Armut in Österreich, 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 309-320.
Stadt Wien (2015). Wiener Sozialbericht 2015. Wiener Sozialpolitische Schriften Band 8.
Statistik Austria (2018a). Abgestimmte Erwerbsstatistik und Arbeitsstättenzählung 2016.
Statistik Austria (2018b). Wohnen. Zahlen, Daten und Indikatoren der Wohnstatistik
2017.
Streissler-Führer, A./D. Kon/C. Krainhöfner/A. Pichler (2015). Leistbare Mieten –
Leistbares Leben. Report for: Österreichischer Verband der Immobilienwirtschaft
(ÖVI), Vienna. (Available in German at:
https://www.hausbesitzer.at/presse/news/leistbare-mieten-leistbares-
leben.html?file=files/inhalt/neuigkeiten/leistbares_mieten_leistbares_leben.pdf.)

19
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

Annex

Table A1: ETHOS Light categories defined as homeless in Austria

Operational Defined as
Living situation Definition
category homeless in Austria

1 People living 1 Public space/ Living on the streets YES

rough external space or in public spaces
without a shelter that
can be defined as
living quarters
2 People in 2 Overnight People with no place YES
emergency shelters of usual residence
accommodation who move frequently
between various types
of accommodation
3 People living in 3 Homelessness Where the period of YES
accommodation hostels stay is time-limited
for the and no long-term
homeless 4 Temporary housing is provided YES
accommodation

5 Transitional YES
supported
accommodation

6 Women’s shelter NO
or refuge
accommodation
4 People living in 7 Healthcare Stay longer than NO
institutions institutions needed due to lack of
housing
8 Penal institutions No housing available
prior to release
5 People living in 9 Mobile homes Where the NO
non- accommodation is
conventional 10 Non-conventional used due to a lack of
dwellings due to buildings housing and is not the
lack of housing person’s usual place
11 Temporary of residence
structures
6 Homeless 12 Conventional Where the NO
people living housing, but not accommodation is
temporarily in the person’s used due to a lack of
conventional usual place of housing and is not the
housing with residence person’s usual place
family and of residence
friends (due to
lack of housing)

20
National strategies to fight homelessness and housing exclusion Austria

Table A2: Latest available data on the number of homeless in Austria

Operational Most recent Period

Living situation Source
category number covered

1 People living 1 Public space/ Registered 2017 (total National inclusion

rough external space roofless (may number; indicators;
include people in all days) BMASGK (2018)
emergency
accommodation):
13,926
2 People in 2 Overnight See 1 above
emergency shelters
accommodation
3 People living in 3 Homelessness 3.3 + 3.4 + 3.5: 2017 (total National inclusion
accommodation hostels Registered number; indicators;
for the homeless in all days) BMASGK (2018)
homeless 4 Temporary institutions:
accommodation 8,688

5 Transitional
supported
accommodation

6 Women’s 3.6: 3,284 2018 AÖF (2019)

shelter or
refuge
accommodation
4 People living in 7 Healthcare
institutions institutions

8 Penal 39,490 1 April Statistics on the

institutions 2019 penal system 30
5 People living in 9 Mobile homes n.a. n.a. n.a.
non-
conventional 10 Non-
dwellings due conventional
to lack of buildings
housing
11 Temporary
structures
6 Homeless 12 Conventional n.a. n.a. n.a.
people living housing, but
temporarily in not the
conventional person’s usual
housing with place of
family and residence
friends (due to
lack of
housing)

30
https://www.justiz.gv.at/web2013/home/strafvollzug/statistik/verteilung-des-
insassenstandes~2c94848542ec49810144457e2e6f3de9.de.html.

21